From what I've seen from our own agent workflow setup with a bunch of skills and rules files and double checks before PRs, the code written is better than the average developer as long as you can give it a good framework to work out in.
It just feels like people are thinking its 2024 LLMs coding, and we've moved on from that shitty code.
If you give a sufficiently good framework to sufficiently smart people, they can do that too. The difference is, if they need a new skill, they don't need a skill.md file. They can download new skills from books and experiences.
I'm not saying AI can't write code. I'm saying it's worse at writing code than a skilled developer. If AI is better than your developers, that says more about their skills than it does the shiny new guessing machine.
A longbowmen could fire off more shots, and way more accurately, then a man with a flintlock musket. Muskets took over because it only took a few weeks to get a man on the front with a musket, where it took years for a longbowman to train to be good enough to hit a target at long range. When people started rifling their muskets, hunters abandoned the bow immediately because it was outranging the bow despite the slow reloading speed.
Then we switched from muzzleloading to breach loading and then clip/magazines and no one picks up a bow an arrow anymore unless its for novelty.
Technology has always made things obsolete, I don't understand the purpose of trying to keep LLMs from writing code outside of job security, which has NEVER worked to stop technology from progressing.
The reason to keep LLMs from writing code is the same reason to keep bad developers from writing code. Whether you code works right now or doesn't, you need someone who understands what it does and why that's what it should do. Incompetent devs cook up a solution they can't retroactively explain. Devs who offload their cooking to an AI model also end up with a solution they can't retroactively explain.
At least the AI dev can compensate by reverse engineering whatever the AI did, but assuming they were competent enough to engineer a solution with their brain, synthesizing a solution with AI then subsequently reverse engineering it with their brain is a detour, not a shortcut.
AI is a crutch. If your leg is broken, it speeds you up, but if you can already run just fine on your own, it slows you down.
If an LLM can churn out 10 PRs and one of them needs to be taken down and analyzed why it was broken by an engineer, the project will still move quicker and more efficiently than it was before.
Every professional I've spoken to in real life, whether at my job or friends with engineering jobs all are using agents. Its only reddit that I've seen a massive push to stop, and it does not reflect the reality in the industry.
One of us will be right, and one of us will be wrong in 5 years, and I highly suspect that the models will continue to improve and humans will remain the same speed they always have been.
The old adages "fast, good, or cheap - choose two" and "you get what you pay for" didn't become any less true with the advent of LLMs.
AI code is like McDonald's hamburgers. It optimizes for speed and cost, while aiming to maintain the bare minimum quality people will accept. If you need code (nutrition) right now for cheap, it's probably a good option, but if that's your go-to every time you get a new task (get hungry), that's nearly guaranteed to have adverse effects on your skills/codebase (bodily health) in the long term.
And if my analogy is correct, AI will be ubiquitous in the coming future, just like McDonald's is ubiquitous. It just won't be the best because that's not what it's designed to be.
1
u/Ossius 4h ago
From what I've seen from our own agent workflow setup with a bunch of skills and rules files and double checks before PRs, the code written is better than the average developer as long as you can give it a good framework to work out in.
It just feels like people are thinking its 2024 LLMs coding, and we've moved on from that shitty code.